"The Large Hadron Collider, the world’s largest particle accelerator, has delivered fewer breakthroughs than scientists expected when it turned on in 2010." Hilarious. The Large Hadron Collider,...
"The Large Hadron Collider, the world’s largest particle accelerator, has delivered fewer breakthroughs than scientists expected when it turned on in 2010."
Hilarious. The Large Hadron Collider, built to test theories about the nature of reality at the deepest levels that could be formulated, is portrayed as a flop because it confirmed the theories of its builders. Those monsters not only had the audacity to be right, but also managed to squander the taxpayer dollar (sorry, euro) proving it.
Did you know that you can buy antimatter from CERN?
So the team at CERN built a two-meter-long portable containment device. On one end is a junction that allows it to be plugged into the beam of particles produced by the existing facility. That junction leads to the containment area, which is blanketed by a superconducting magnet. Elsewhere on the device are batteries to ensure an uninterrupted power supply, along with the electronics to run it all. The whole setup is encased in a metal frame that includes lifting points that can be used to attach it to a crane for moving around. -Ars Technica
Those so called "physicists" have done nothing more than master the laws of nature so thoroughly that they can contain, package, and transport the most energetic matter in the universe. What a fiasco!
I dislike articles like this because they don’t do a whole bunch to actually help understand where the line is. You can look at what Avi Loeb has done, how his peers have reacted, and tell that...
I dislike articles like this because they don’t do a whole bunch to actually help understand where the line is.
You can look at what Avi Loeb has done, how his peers have reacted, and tell that yes, there can be big fucking problems in science selling out and chasing clout with bullshit.
String theory has been argued about as crockery since I was in middle school.
I have 0 doubt that the asshole going on Rogan is bullshit. I have NO idea how much of Sabine hoffsteder is. She seems to have hit on some sensitive subjects and echoed beliefs I’ve seen from others in the field, but like many people who make criticism their career you eventually run out of material and just start being hyperbolic about nitpicks.
Is that correct? Is it worse? I rarely watch one of her videos these days but since she’s offhandedly mentioned in connection with a straight up Rogan grifter I assume that’s the intent?
It would be nice if there were experts in these fields I could trust, but the ones I’ve met personally do have major criticisms of what’s going on. Again just skipping over string theory a more interesting discussion I had in the last 10 years was about how there’s a lot of modern fusion research that may very well be off on the wrong track, but “hey the 10 years and millions of dollars we’ve spent is prooooobably going to dead end or at least be 20x as hard as this new method that requires starting over “ is a tough discussion.
More importantly it’s relatable. Why would all physics research be above the standard problems of clout and money. Hell I know multiple other fields had major discoveries/evidence ignored or attacked basically until the old guard died out. It’s within my parents lifetime that “meteor killed the dinosaurs” went from “don’t be silly” to accepted norm, and that’s not a totally unfair summary of the story if you look into the pushback he got (name escapes me. Made several discoveries across a few fields…)
Oh and all this is before you get into legit scientists weighing in outside their field because smart person must know everything, and they’re VERY easy to spot as full of it then, so how much of the rest of their views can you trust.
This article doesn’t really touch on the underlying legitimate concern and criticism people have. It does remind us that yes Rogan and friends are out there pushing garbage but it seems devoid of detail beyond that
My perspective as a cosmologist is that Hossenfelder has burnt any credibility she may have had. I would not place much stock in her criticisms these days. I think once upon a time she was more...
My perspective as a cosmologist is that Hossenfelder has burnt any credibility she may have had. I would not place much stock in her criticisms these days. I think once upon a time she was more measured and had hit on a few points that, at a minimum, were worth discussing regarding funding priorities in basic physics research. But I think the attention and audience she has gained via Youtube has warped her perspective and that now she just makes videos that will maximize views.
For what it’s worth, I think it would be rare to find a physicist who doesn’t have complaints about how funding is allocated in their field. I don’t think that’s a sign of systemic inertia or misplaced priorities, but rather a sign of generally insufficient funding to pursue all interesting a valid lines of inquiry!
Thanks for the detail and insight. That's roughly the vibe I've been getting but only since last week. Before that I would've assumed she still had credibility. This is why I like tildes (and used...
Thanks for the detail and insight. That's roughly the vibe I've been getting but only since last week. Before that I would've assumed she still had credibility.
This is why I like tildes (and used to like reddit) because it's nice to get insight from people who actually deal with this stuff.
I would recommend visiting Peter Woit's blog Not Even Wrong for another discussion of this article. Not because I agree with Peter -- I think Peter missed the point of the essay -- but because (1)...
I would recommend visiting Peter Woit's blog Not Even Wrong for another discussion of this article. Not because I agree with Peter -- I think Peter missed the point of the essay -- but because (1) none other than the writer of the piece (Dan Kagan-Kans) shows ups to defend himself and (2) there is a rather ironic twist as the thread develops, which speaks to an even larger epistemic failure.
A hint
Note that Daniel Kagan Kans is not Dan Kagan-Kans.
Angela has a video out about it. Haven't watched it yet but for those who want: Nebula https://nebula.tv/videos/angelacollier-conspiracy-physics-and-you-and-also-me/ YT...
Angela has a video out about it. Haven't watched it yet but for those who want:
"The Large Hadron Collider, the world’s largest particle accelerator, has delivered fewer breakthroughs than scientists expected when it turned on in 2010."
Hilarious. The Large Hadron Collider, built to test theories about the nature of reality at the deepest levels that could be formulated, is portrayed as a flop because it confirmed the theories of its builders. Those monsters not only had the audacity to be right, but also managed to squander the taxpayer dollar (sorry, euro) proving it.
Did you know that you can buy antimatter from CERN?
Those so called "physicists" have done nothing more than master the laws of nature so thoroughly that they can contain, package, and transport the most energetic matter in the universe. What a fiasco!
I dislike articles like this because they don’t do a whole bunch to actually help understand where the line is.
You can look at what Avi Loeb has done, how his peers have reacted, and tell that yes, there can be big fucking problems in science selling out and chasing clout with bullshit.
String theory has been argued about as crockery since I was in middle school.
I have 0 doubt that the asshole going on Rogan is bullshit. I have NO idea how much of Sabine hoffsteder is. She seems to have hit on some sensitive subjects and echoed beliefs I’ve seen from others in the field, but like many people who make criticism their career you eventually run out of material and just start being hyperbolic about nitpicks.
Is that correct? Is it worse? I rarely watch one of her videos these days but since she’s offhandedly mentioned in connection with a straight up Rogan grifter I assume that’s the intent?
It would be nice if there were experts in these fields I could trust, but the ones I’ve met personally do have major criticisms of what’s going on. Again just skipping over string theory a more interesting discussion I had in the last 10 years was about how there’s a lot of modern fusion research that may very well be off on the wrong track, but “hey the 10 years and millions of dollars we’ve spent is prooooobably going to dead end or at least be 20x as hard as this new method that requires starting over “ is a tough discussion.
More importantly it’s relatable. Why would all physics research be above the standard problems of clout and money. Hell I know multiple other fields had major discoveries/evidence ignored or attacked basically until the old guard died out. It’s within my parents lifetime that “meteor killed the dinosaurs” went from “don’t be silly” to accepted norm, and that’s not a totally unfair summary of the story if you look into the pushback he got (name escapes me. Made several discoveries across a few fields…)
Oh and all this is before you get into legit scientists weighing in outside their field because smart person must know everything, and they’re VERY easy to spot as full of it then, so how much of the rest of their views can you trust.
This article doesn’t really touch on the underlying legitimate concern and criticism people have. It does remind us that yes Rogan and friends are out there pushing garbage but it seems devoid of detail beyond that
My perspective as a cosmologist is that Hossenfelder has burnt any credibility she may have had. I would not place much stock in her criticisms these days. I think once upon a time she was more measured and had hit on a few points that, at a minimum, were worth discussing regarding funding priorities in basic physics research. But I think the attention and audience she has gained via Youtube has warped her perspective and that now she just makes videos that will maximize views.
For what it’s worth, I think it would be rare to find a physicist who doesn’t have complaints about how funding is allocated in their field. I don’t think that’s a sign of systemic inertia or misplaced priorities, but rather a sign of generally insufficient funding to pursue all interesting a valid lines of inquiry!
Thanks for the detail and insight. That's roughly the vibe I've been getting but only since last week. Before that I would've assumed she still had credibility.
This is why I like tildes (and used to like reddit) because it's nice to get insight from people who actually deal with this stuff.
For the meteor comment more reading is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvarez_hypothesis which was new to me, thank you!
Mirror: https://archive.is/jXY0l
I would recommend visiting Peter Woit's blog Not Even Wrong for another discussion of this article. Not because I agree with Peter -- I think Peter missed the point of the essay -- but because (1) none other than the writer of the piece (Dan Kagan-Kans) shows ups to defend himself and (2) there is a rather ironic twist as the thread develops, which speaks to an even larger epistemic failure.
A hint
Note that Daniel Kagan Kans is not Dan Kagan-Kans.
Angela has a video out about it. Haven't watched it yet but for those who want:
Nebula
https://nebula.tv/videos/angelacollier-conspiracy-physics-and-you-and-also-me/
YT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miJbW3i9qQc
Love her videos, I'm looking forward to this one. Thanks for linking!